Words -Historical

Hi, Jo here, busy, busy, busy. And behind.

All the regular Wench readers will know that Anne, Nicola, Mary Jo and I were away at the RWA conference in San Antonio. For me and Nicola that meant jet lag as well as introvert exhaustion. I used to think that introvert meant someone who hid away from people, but according to the Myers-Briggs personality test, it means we give out energy when we're with people. Once I heard about that it explained why I'd go to conferences, have a great time, but find myself back in my room reading a book. Refueling. In testing, nearly all writers turn out to be introverts, which isn't surprising as we spend a lot of time alone with out inner world.

Extroverts, in MB, take in energy when they're with people, so tend to choose professions involving a lot of contact with people. I haven't read any data on this but I suspect that extrovert writers are the ones who love to write in a busy coffee shop and seek out as many speaking engagements and media opportunities as they can, or perhaps even have a part time job when they don't need the money.

Any idea which you are?

In the weird synchronicity that often happens I got up late today (that's not the synchronicity, but an explanation of why this blog is late, and also...) and switched on the radio as I was making my breakfast to find the beginning of a new series of Stephen Fry's Fry's English Delight, his programme about words. You may be able to listen to it by clicking on that link.

This week's episode? "Language and magic have a mysterious relationship, which is probed in this programme by Stephen Fry. It's a beguiling, secret world in which magicians and psychologists feel equally at home. The common factor - nobody knows exactly how either works."

We all know fiction is a form of magic, but in addition I intended this blog to be about the word HISTORICAL.

(I don't have any suitable pics for this word topic, so I thought I'd share some pictures of swallows in flight that my husband took recently in Wales.)

At the RWA conference there was a session about the historical romance genre and the idea arose that some people are turned away from historical romance by the word historical. Two main reasons were given.

1. It's imprecise. A lot of people these days might think historical romance = a sexy love story set in the Regency, but of course it could be a love story set anywhere in the past up to point vaguely set where there's no one left alive from that time.

2. And most interesting to me -- it sounds daunting. Apparently "historical" makes some people think of school; dates, political movements, and old white males; and exams. 

"Historical" draws me, because I've always loved playing around in the past, but I can see how that might be. In addition we have "historical romance" and "historical novel". We know the difference, but often people use "historical" or "historical fiction" to mean both, which confuses.

What to do?

One suggestion was that we describe our books specifically to period. Medieval romance, Tudor romance, Edwardian romance. We can't easily use Regency romance because that already means the traditional regency form, so the best alternative is Regency-era romance.

Any thoughts about that?

You are probably someone who doesn't mind the word "historical" or finds it appealing, but if you're willing to help me, I'd like you to ask a non-historical reader or two for an opinion and report back.

You could ask them whether "historical romance" sounds weighty to them, perhaps designed to teach them about the past. (Rather than sending them on a delightful adventure in times of yore.)

Also, which would they be most likely to pick up or click on for more information, a "historical romance" or a "regency-era romance."

What about a "medieval romance", or a "knights and ladies romance"?

I'm now wondering whether the lack of popularity of medieval romance is that somehow it's been hit by "historical" (weighty) and "medieval" (grim.)

To finish, here's a collage of birds in flight.

Now I must fly back to Too Dangerous for a Lady. It's another Rogues book and I'm at the polishing phase, but it is due in New York in a fortnight. (There's another lovely word, along of course with sennight.)

Do you have a favourite word from the past.

Words are mysterious. I think it was J R R Tolkein who said one of the most beautiful phrases in the English language is "cellar door." Isn't it just!

Cheers,

Jo

Comments

[Sonya Heaney]

It would be nice to label historical romance by the time period if only to finally stop people calling everything from 1200 – 1940 a “Regency romance”!!

There’re a lot of people who won’t read historical romance but who obsessively gobble up “Strong Alpha” romances in other genres. They just flat out refuse to try the historical genre, even though I think a strong, take-charge (perhaps even politically incorrect) hero often works much better in historical rather than contemporary settings.

After all, everyone’s currently in love with contemporary books where the hero’s a billionaire with his own helicopter (personally, I really dislike contemporary romances like that); why not a Regency duke with a legitimate reason for his wealth and power?

I think that if they were willing to try HR, they’d be pleasantly surprised. I know a lot of people eventually try it and are immediate converts.

[HJ]

I'm positively drawn by the term "historical", but I like some periods more than others so prefer a more precise description. I agree that another benefit may be that they sound less daunting, but I suspect that someone who is deterred by "historical" may not like "Elizabethan" either -- would it not have the same connotations for them?

Thank you for the alert about Fry's new series!

And thank you also for reminding me about introverts. I've just returned from a weekend course which I thoroughly enjoyed, but couldn't understand why I felt so drained last night and today. Now I know!

[Kathy Lynn Emerson]

Hi, Jo,
Back when I was writing for the old Harper Monogram line I lobbied for labeling my books "historical romantic suspense with a touch of the paranormal" but that wouldn't fit on the spine. No surprise that my "historical romance" novels were not a resounding success. The mystery genre seems to do slightly better at labels, since most books are part of a series and the series title can specify Elizabethan mystery or Edwardian mystery or whatever. Then, again, the first book in my new series, set to debut next year (this November in the UK), is being billed by the publisher as "an Elizabethan spy thriller" when I was sure what I wrote was another of my historical cozies!!! Go figure.

Kathy/Kaitlyn (and, briefly, Kate Emerson)

[Jobev]

I agree about the Strong Alpha heroes, Sonya. I think past-times romances lost ground there when medievals slid. A Regency duke can be rich and powerful, but he's probably not done a lot of broad-sword to broad-sword combat!

[Jobev]

Happy to remind you about introverts, HJ. It does explain a lot.

Perhaps Tudor Romance works better than medieval because of The Tudors? Perhaps we need the Downton Romance, or the Stately Home Romance?

[Jobev]

LOL,Kathy. Some descriptions do take up space, don't they?

As a reader of mysteries I find some of the short descriptions insufficient. Mystery to me means whodunnit, but some are psychological explorations of whydunnit, or worse for me, explorations of the sleuth's private demons or depressions.

Elizabethan spy thriller, eh? Does sound intriguing!

[jeannette halpin]

The word "historical" draws me in, and I would always give a novel with that word in the description at least a look. I am fairly new to the romance genre, because the word "romance" put me off until I found one of Mary Jo Putney's novels about 4 years ago, got completely sucked in, and became a fan of "Regencies". So, I wonder if the word "romance" might turn some potential readers away. Perhaps "Historical Novel with a Good Love Story Included" would do the trick!? Back up to what Sonya Heaney said, I agree that those contemporary romances where billionaire hero has a helicopter leave me cold. I would much rather read about the Duke, espeically an "introverted" Duke!

[Judith Laik]

I suspect that the dreadful way history is taught in school can take a lot of blame for people’s attitudes about reading anything historical (It’s about PEOPLE, curriculum planners! Any novelist knows that people like to read about other people; why is history instruction based around dry dates, battles, agricultural or industrial products? I was very fortunate to have an innovative teacher in high school who gave a two-period class teaching English and world history. While we studied Rome, we read Julius Caesar; for the French Revolution, A Tale of Two Cities. I was already an avid reader of historical fiction, so I can’t speak for whether he sparked any deeper interest in history among other students.) However, I don’t think history studies in school are entirely responsible for those who refuse to read anything historical. I’ve noticed an attitude of “that’s all dead now; why look back on what’s over?” among those who disdain reading those books. I’m not sure that these people can be converted, outside of convincing them of the truth of George Santayana’s statement: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

[Annacbowling]

Extroverted writer here, and I *do* like to write in the coffee house down the block from my house. I spend energy in my story world and need to be around people to refuel, so writing in a public place -the park is also good- gives me the best of both worlds.

The word "historical" definitely draws me in, and I would love to see the different time periods emphasized. Historical romance includes the Regency era, but is not limited to it, by any means. When I first discovered trads, I thought every era had them, and was disappointed to find out I couldn't get the same sorts of stories for Tudor, Restoration or Edwardian tales.

[Shannon]

On introverts, there's a new book out called Quiet: The Power of Introverts. I'm only a short way in, but I'm saying "That's me" over and over.

An interesting discussion of what historical can mean to different people and how to accurately describe an era, a group of books, or a special book.

One of the things about historical romance is that genre has changed over time in my mind, so that there's not only eras like Tudor, Medieval, and Regency but eras in the history of the historical romance.

Like many, I started with Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer, who in turn inspired a lot of the "sweet" Regencies.

I'm not sure if it was the 70s or the 80s, historical romance began to develop, pushing the boundaries. Some of it was the creation of over the top alpha heroes. Some of it was greater inclusion of sex before marriage and greater descriptions of intercourse as part of love scenes. Even that morphed--some using purple prose, etc.

Later on, historical romance began to play with anti-heros (a more extreme version of the rake who reforms), the theme of agency for women became more and more frequent (sometime anachronistically and other times realistically and everywhere in between) and non-traditional heroines (a courtesan for example).

So for me, there's historical eras in which books are set, and then the rough eras that I identify by covers, blurbs, and dates of publication.

[Molly Moody]

Although I already read "historical" romance I would prefer that they be labeled by era so I would more easily know if I wanted to read it. To me if a book is set before the 20th century it's historical, anything set in the last century isn't historical to my way of thinking.

[Mary Jo Putney]

Jo, so true about introverts and extroverts. My sister is a psychologist and explain the protocols to me years ago, and it immediately made sense. Being with people drains energy, even if--especially if?--we're having a great time.

I haven't thought about extrovert writers being the coffee shop sort, but it does make sense. It certainly isn't anything I'd do!

[Jana]

Fortnight is such a great word! I read Beatrix Potter's "Peter Rabbit" to my class of 3rd graders a couple years ago and talked about the word "fortnight". My greatest delight was a few weeks later noticing one of my poorer writers using the word correctly in a story. I may not have been able to turn him into a writer but I did teach him an old fashioned and seldom used way to say "2 weeks"!

[Maggie Robinson]

I cannot imagine writing in a coffee shop or anywhere public. For one thing, I couldn't go there barefoot in my nightgown.

Your post is timely. Yesterday I went to have my teeth cleaned. While I waited I had my Kindle out. The hygienist asked me what I was reading, and I said "a Scottish historical about the Jacobite rebellion" and her eyes glazed over instantly, LOL. Then I said,"Men in kilts," which got a totally different reaction.

It's dismaying that historicals frighten people at the moment. I sure hope that changes. Possibly with TV shows like Sleepy Hollow (not accurate/sensible, but hey the hero is hot) and Outlander, there will be a surge again. The Downton Abbey craze didn't seem to carry over to books, though I am loving writing Edwardians and don't want to be dragged back into the Regency. :)

[Annette N]

I think some readers believe that the word historical does not include actual human beings. Unfortunately, history is not taught about people, it is all about events. And lost is the knowledge that the people from history were human and interesting and complex and they must have had sex because here we are. I love history, so anything that says historical would draw a second look from me.

I am an introvert, but I have a great deal of empathy for people, so have worked in fields which put me in front of people helping solve their problems. I would go home at the end of the day feeling as if I were "drug backwards through a knot hole'. Now I know why. Thank you for the knowledge.

[Jobev]

Thanks, Jeannette. I'm not sure if "historical novel" would help, though. I think most people would think that very weighty indeed!

Could be wrong.

Jo

[Jobev]

What a great teacher, Judith! Yes, it's about people.

I suppose there are people who disdain reading about the past, just as there are some who won't read fantasy. "It's all made up."

Let's hear it for a broad imagination, I say!

Jo

[Jobev]

Good point, Anna, about no trads in other eras. You might find some in Harlequin Historicals, and also in historical romances put out by the Christian Inspirational publishers. Some are preachy, but many are just good romances whose characters are practicing Christians.

Most of my characters are, to a lesser or greater extent, but they do get up to things the Christian Inspirational presses wouldn't approve of. But I've read some good "sweet" stories there.

[Sheila C]

I loved your article Jo. Not only that you are my fav author but also, I liked the introvert explanation. It explained a lot about me. When I see or hear "historical" in anything, my eyes and ears perk up! I am fascinated in it. To me, I find the word "historical" romantic.
Hopefully that doesn't freak everyone out!

[Jobev]

"One of the things about historical romance is that genre has changed over time in my mind, so that there's not only eras like Tudor, Medieval, and Regency but eras in the history of the historical romance."

Good point, Shannon.

One of the good things about e-books is that work is re-appearing from many periods in historical romance and we can find those written 20, 30, 40 years ago.

Sometimes they delight. Sometimes they're not what we remembered them to be, or we've changed so that we don't appreciate them any more.

[Jobev]

Good point, Molly. I think it's going to be a moving point, however, fixed about 100 years ago. Works for me.

[Jobev]

Delightful, Jana. Fortnight is a useful word.

Jo

[Jobev]

LOL on "men in kilts" Maggie.

Unfortunately screen hits don't seem to affect books that much. The Jane Austen furore didn't do much for the traditional Regency, and as you say, Downton Abbey hasn't led to an upsurge in Edwardian romance.

I wonder if creating a new sub-genre of Stately Home Romances might catch on. It sounds rather pompous to me.

[Jobev]

Bless you for using your empathy to help people, Annette. I can imagine how draining it must be.

[Jobev]

Glad to have a cheer for "historical", Sheila.

[Evangeline Holland]

I don't think history is taught any differently today than when I was a teenager 10-15 years ago. In fact, history is much more accessible via blogs, social media, and YouTube. I see tons of enthusiastic comments from teens on the documentaries I watch on YouTube.

It might not be the "historical" in historical romance that scares readers away a little, but how the books are packaged. We can shout all we want that we don't write bodice rippers, but the covers haven't changed that much since the 80s (clinches, bare chests, flowing hair, passionate gazes, flowery titles). It's rather similar to how new romance readers gobble up category-style romances by indie writers and epublishers like Entangled, but continue to turn up their noses at anything Harlequin.

I also believe historical romance needs to return to its roots: the heroine's journey. Younger readers have grown up on period dramas and MG/YA historical fiction that have a deep romantic plot, but are mostly focused on one or more female protagonists. Even Downton Abbey, the popular period drama du jour, is very heroine-centric. And the stories younger readers consume are larger in scope: the heroine gets the guy, but she also saves the world, or her estate, or her planet, or her relationship with her sister/parent/best friend.

[Bona]

As a reader of romance, I prefer contemporary and suspense better than historical romance. But outside the genre, historical novels are one of my favourite type of books. So I'm not sure I'm a typical romance reader. Therefore, my opinion is not exactly the most useful.

But I will try to answer and help, anyway:

- I call the subgenre 'historical romance novel' or 'historical romance'. As far as it's a romance I expect it to be -usually- very different to a typical historical novel, in the sense Robert Graves or Gore Vidal or Yourcenar wrote historical novels. I can't imagine any romance reader to be confused about what kind of book it is.

- The thing about 'Medieval romance', 'Tudor romance' etc is using the term 'romance' instead of 'romance novel'. I prefer to state clearly that this genre is about novels.

- "Historical romance" do not sound weighty to me, but this could be because I read historical novels so I find 'historical romances' just the opposite - light, when I compare it with historical novels outside the romance genre.

- I'd be most likely to pick up or click on for more information, about a "historical romance" rather than a "regency-era romance."

- A "medieval romance" would interest me more than a "knights and ladies romance".